thishereboi
Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Think about this - the historical average of just sticking your money in the dow jones is 16%. So what they get for the hassle of risking their money setting up a business and employing people is.. LESS money.
Not true. Historically the average is under 12% and more recently lower than that.
http://blog.petetheplanner.com/what-rate-of-return-should-you-expect-on-your-investments
And anyone who puts there money in the Dow or any stock fund and expects to hit the market average is nuts. The fund always takes a cut which comes directly out of your earnings. So figure on less than 7%. Which is very close to the historic profit margins for businesses.
And yes it is a matter of fairness for an employer to pass on some of the gains in productivity by his employees to his employees.
If the increase was caused by their distinct and specific efforts, I would agree.
And when that does occur, equally effective owners/CEO's and employers do...exactly that.
When it's not due to the distinct and specific effort of the employee, rather the employer's investment in productivity, no.
I've never seen or heard of an increase in worker productivity that did not involve the worker.
Take a rather well known example. Secretaries, legal researchers and all the other workers whose job is to produce documents. Going from handwriting to typewriters and later to computers with word processing software. The employer may have bought the hardware but the worker had to use it and learn to use it well. Otherwise there would have been no productivity gain.
So should the employee share in the productivity increase or not?
Perhaps you've heard of computers then.
And I've heard of data entry operators, DBA's, programmers and IT support staff who are all needed to make those computers actually increase productivity as well as the employees who must know how to use those computers to increase their productivity.
You may possibly be aware that during Clinton's reign, jobs rose by nearly 21 million (more than any other Presidential 8 year period...actually, to date...then....more than any 8 Presidents before him. Combined).
Prior to his 8 years, Republicans were responsible for the greater percentage of, and in fact actual, numbers of jobs created. Clinton's gift to us as to jobs was no less than a fluke, combined with the fact that he worked diligently not to fuck it up...however, there was something very unique that occurred during Clinton's 8 years:
Not to take anything away from his Presidency....he was a phenomenal President...and any Republican that tells you otherwise....isn't paying attention....he was however, a slimy piece of human sewage (he was also, just to restate, a spectacularly successful Prez).
That being said, Bush (prior to his electoral demise) had just raised taxes (albeit during the same term that prior to being elected he said "watch my lips...no new taxes") more than any other Prez had ever done in history (in dollars and in fact).
So, for clarification, as to deficit spending...Clinton was handed on January 21, 150 billion dollars to set against any deficit, without lifting a finger.
That was in 1991. In 1992 the computer age had begun, but hadn't actually culminated...meaning...no one was doing much more than playing asteroids with these things but....there were now millions of them. A market was waiting for geniuses in garages...and...it came.
By 1994, Microsoft Excel had become a predominant player in the world of computers (calculations/spreadsheets, precursor to Intuit and other accounting programs) and by 1995, people in garages across the country found they could type their own letters (faster than asking their secretary to do so), these geniuses rose to the occasion (with now millions of customers) and created software that made things happen....fast.
Greenspan now says (when he was confused at the time why productivity was a Preakness horse "but there's no sense behind it") "We didn't know. We had absolutely nothing in history to compare it to, but suddenly, as if uncontrollably, productivity simply couldn't be stopped...it grew by 4, 5 and 8% all while prices were falling".
The same exact thing (for you historians) happened during the steam age and leather belts running turbines and grist mills. And then, as in all technology....it stalled.
Of course Greenspan had precedence....he just didn't find it.
He was also being cow towed by Congress to state that "we can increase spending forever....we're in a brand new age".
So, Clinton had unprecedented availability of new cash flow thanks to new tax revenue he could always claim he never voted for (and never said "Thanks George") and tax payers, who through no fault of their own were producing more for the same effort, and at lower cost per unit of production, thanks to computers.
It was as if suddenly in 1923, right at the point where folks learned that re-gearing their John Deer's would gain 12% more efficiency without reducing torque, someone came along and said "I'll re-gear your John Deer to multiply your efficiencies by factors of 7, and....I'll promise you'll only have to fill your gas tank once per day as opposed to 5 times per day"
Twofer.
Threefer....
10fer.
Clinton rocked...but he was the recipient of good blessings....not the cause.
Ergo, why wages didn't rise during that time in real terms was almost purely because....companies had spent 9 years spending, being told "computers are going to increase your revenues by factors untold" (and had invested heavily on the promise of same) and by 1996, productivity was (finally) rising even if you sat on your hands because....computers had finally become so capable, for small corporations (moreso for large ones), of handling reasonably sized databases, contract proposals that changed efficiencies for all and in the end....for 5 years, it was a free fall of "we (America) can't do any wrong" (which by the way, was why they were able to project in 1997 that there would be surpluses as far as the eye could see).
I don't take away anything from the man, but he didn't cause that growth, nor did the IT guys. They simply had been given (finally) a really cool shovel that now did vastly more than dig holes.
And when it did....it dug them better, with less effort and less time.
Today those gains have been cemented into our basic operations.
Now, that's the status quo.
Want a big raise now?
Take the above and create something that puts a company's growth rate 35% above and in front of your competitors.
Until then....you're getting paid (quite) well.
(And fairly).
Otherwise, invest in a (paid for) gigantor server farm....and we'll talk money.
QFT
_____________________________
"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert
This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi
|
RE: Minimum wage in america - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread